Off-topic WWII discussion

[MeatPacker]

I hope when the game comes around, and who knows maybe even before, that the mods will allow a forum for off-topic WWII discussions. In the army painting thread somebody said that the Battle with Russia was the turning point of the war, another said the Normandy Invasion, I think the Battle of Britian is another good candidate. In any case, WWII may turn out to be the most interesting and complicated war ever and I think events so recent as the war in Iraq might offer interesting insights and I think a general forum discussion on the matter would be interesting to have.

[retroholyfire]

WW2 is complicated. Battle of Britain was first real loss for Germany but if Germany wanted they could have invaded Britain. Instead Hitler turned his attention to russia where, once it entered a war of attrition, the Germans couldn't compete. THAT was the real turning point in the war and allowed the Allies some breathing space. Russia would not have been as much of a disaster if Hitler had listened to his Generals. There are many "ifs" and "buts" in the war. For example if Hitler had avoided Russia and invaded Britain, America would have had no where to build up forces for the invasion of mainland Europe. If, rather than doing D-Day, the allied forces attacked mainland Europe via Africa (which would have been easier) then the cold war may have been different and less tense. Ultimately Hitler was the cause of the Germans to suffer so much since he refused to listen to people who actually knew what they were tlaking about (That's why dictatorship doesn't work in many cases.) Another if is if Britain had sisded with Germany (originally Hitler admired Britain and it's empire and wanted to be allies with them.) History is very strange and WW2 is no exception. Feel free to correct me on some facts since i'm currently a bit rusty about them :D

[Busby]

Hitler could of not invaded Britain, the Kriegsmarine was in no state to fight the Royal Navy, which support would be required for a landing. Plus, the Royal Navy had more Destroyers then the Nazi's had landing ships.

[Lochar]

I always thought it was interesting that at the time of the war that the total amount of german forces was almost equal to what france and britain had.

Also I agree that Russia was the cause for tying up a large portion of the german army but I also believe if Germany came out in good shape during the battle of britain that their airpower could have turned the tide.

There are a ton of what ifs and thats why I like trying them.

[LoneWolf666]

While the Battle of Britain was without doubt Germany's loss, it hardly can be called important. All it meant for Germany was tying up it's air support, which wasn't really needed elsewhere. When Hitler decided to attack Russia, he lost the war, but, truth be told, even if he hadn't, Stalin would attack him anyway. It was a lose-lose situation.

[IcecreamLtDan]

There have been general WWII discussions here in the past. Generally they are encouraged as long as they don't turn into flame wars, which they usually do. I've read a great deal about WWII, though admittidly mostly the Pacific theater, and enjoy discussions about it. At the moment I am reading about WWI though.

[Lochar]

I dont know, having air superiority can win or lose Battles, just think if Hitler was able to bomb every Russian factory and airfield, do you believe even Russia's numbers would help?

Then again America was virtually untouched and had the factories cranking out supplies that helped as well.

Not saying that Russia was Hitlers mistake but I think so many factors add up as well.

[Borriesz]

Hitler could of not invaded Britain, the Kriegsmarine was in no state to fight the Royal Navy, which support would be required for a landing. Plus, the Royal Navy had more Destroyers then the Nazi's had landing ships.

Good point. Also very important: the R.A.F (Royal Air Force) defeated the German Luftwaffe, in the battle to invase Britain which was, among with the Battle of Stalingrad in Russia, and the Battle of El Alamein, in Afrika (Rommel [Afrika Korps] vs Desert Rats) on of the major turning points in WWII.

[LoneWolf666]

I dont know, having air superiority can win or lose Battles, just think if Hitler was able to bomb every Russian factory and airfield, do you believe even Russia's numbers would help?

Stalin moved Russian factories so far east, it was impossible to bomb them. I do not believe Luftwaffe could have been an important factor in the war.

EDIT: MAJOR mistake... thanks, retro...

[retroholyfire]

So far East you mean. West is towards Germany. The Battle of Britain in itself doesn't seem important but think if Britain had been invaded how could D-Day have happened? PS IcecreamLTDan: WW1 = trenches along east side of France, No nazis, No blitzkrieg, bi-planes, battle of the somme, battle of Jutland, British navy larger than 2nd and 3rd largest combined, started with assassination of arch duke franz ferdinand by a serbian terrorist groupd called the black hand. Those are the basic facts. Oh and Blackadder made a great series about it :D
I have roughly 1620 pages on WW2, The spitfire, the lancaster bomber, tanks and the SAS here if anyone wants some info :D (I counted)

[LoneWolf666]

The Battle of Britain in itself doesn't seem important but think if Britain had been invaded how could D-Day have happened?

If D-Day didn't happen, all of Europe would be speaking russian right now...

[Klaus88]

Or speaking germen. Without D-day and the second front it wasn't 100% that Stalin would have kept bleeding Russia dry to defeat the germens.

[LoneWolf666]

I think people overestimate the significance of the D-Day. IMO, the Red Army would have no problem crushing Germany entirely on its own. Opinions? This is, after all, a discussion. ;)

[Lochar]

Like I was saying I am not stating Russia wasnt a focal point but IMO other things contributed as well. America may have dithered another few yrs if they werent attacked. Japan was conquering China which was next door to Russia.

The Axis overextended themselves, and bit off more than they could chew.

And you cant discount airpower, The whole Pacific Theatre was so we could get close to bomb Japan.

[Busby]

Well, your right in a way, the THREAT of a invasion would of kept Nazi divisions tied down in France, and if divisions were moved east, the invasion would happen.

[retroholyfire]

The major blow in the eastern front to the Germans was not the red army but the russian winter. The Germans were not equipped for it and that was perhaps the main factor that stopped the Germans. Also the Axis have a habbit of biting off more than they can chew. It was stupid for Hitler to attack Russia whilst they were allies rather than taking britain. Then he would have been free to move everything east and fortify the eastern front.

[LoneWolf666]

I think the western allies contributed the most by wrestling Africa from german control. Those Tigers didn't run on solar power, you know. :D

Hitler couldn't invade Britain. Reasons - airborne assault failed, any kind of paratrooper invasion would be stranded, supply planes would just be shot down, paratroopers would be crushed. The second possible way - naval landing, was also impossible, as Kriegsmarine had no chance against Allied fleets. And third, if Hitler somehow landed his troops and tied his forces on the Isles, you can bet Stalin would soon be knocking on his door.

The russian winter was only a helpful factor that stopped the germans dead in their tracks, giving Russia the time necessary to push military growth to unprecedent limits. Red Army was a train - once started, it wouldn't stop. If USA didn't develop the A-Bomb russians would probably just run them over after taking Berlin and stop perhaps in Spain.

[retroholyfire]

If America didn't invent the A-Bomb they would have been fighting Japan a lot longer. Also the Russians wouldn't attack the Allies the second they meet. Stalin was evil but I don't think he would go as far as to immediatly attack allies who had not done any wrong to him strait away. Later on, yes he probably would have invaded but strait away, I doubt it.

[LoneWolf666]

allies who had not done any wrong to him

Did Poland wrong Stalin in any way? We're talking about a madman here, and it was really the best time to strike.

[Mogolov]

indeed, I would have put money on that mad communist taking any chance it took.

[retroholyfire]

Yes. Inevitably he would have but the point i'm making is I don't think he would have waged war against the Allies the second the 2 armies met.

[philgreg]

Reason a German landing in Britain didnt happen was cos of lack of air supremacy. If, after german loss of the battle of britian they had turned to massive fighter production (as they were capable of) they wouldve ground the British down. Air supremacy > navy. Simple as. if britain lost the Battle of Britain, they would not have been capable of repelling a German assault.

Also, Africa wasnt THAT important. The Germans had all the oil they needed from synthetic plants and countries such as Romania.

And finally, Stalin wouldnt have invaded Germany in 1941, as the Red army was in no fit state. The Air force was vastly outdated, the navy was outdated. The army wasnt much better and lacked decent Generals and Officers. Im not saying the Russians wouldnt have invaded Germany, it jjst wouldnt have been for a while.

[Klaus88]

It was the red army not the russian winter that eventually stopped and threw back the germens!

[MeatPacker]

Well cool... my intention in starting this thread was to advocate for a WWII history forum where discussions such as these could be had, which is much more fun than some dry history book. But this is a much better discussion that we are having instead.

So, possible turning points:
a) Stalingrad
b) Normandy
c) Battle of Britain
d) Pearl Harbor

All of them were important, but I, of course, have to go with D.


If America didn't invent the A-Bomb they would have been fighting Japan a lot longer.
A whole lot longer. Personally, given the hindsight of the Vietnam War, and now Iraq, I don't think the U.S. could have beaten Japan without an A-bomb.

[ÜberJumper]

The main failure on the eastern front was Hitler failing to secure the Caucaus oil fields.

Had the Germans ignored moscow, and leningrad, and secured the southern front, and the oil there, perhaps even driving to the Gulf region and its oil, they could have won.

[Tiresias]

there are so many both sides could have done to wither win or lose the war at anyy point in the war (or indeed any war) I tend to find it normally a moot point :P

[Lochar]

Well cool... my intention in starting this thread was to advocate for a WWII history forum where discussions such as these could be had, which is much more fun than some dry history book. But this is a much better discussion that we are having instead.

So, possible turning points:
a) Stalingrad
b) Normandy
c) Battle of Britain
d) Pearl Harbor

All of them were important, but I, of course, have to go with D.


A whole lot longer. Personally, given the hindsight of the Vietnam War, and now Iraq, I don't think the U.S. could have beaten Japan without an A-bomb.

It would have went on longer, but consider the European Theatre was over so now ALL of those resources could be put into play. Hehe another what if, but how much territory would Japan have lost before they actually surrrended and how would that pie have been sliced later.




The main failure on the eastern front was Hitler failing to secure the Caucaus oil fields.

Had the Germans ignored moscow, and leningrad, and secured the southern front, and the oil there, perhaps even driving to the Gulf region and its oil, they could have won.

I can agree with this, as fuel or loss of it was a chunk of Germany losing ground in some battles (which I will insert a cheap sideline opf why I like logisitics in wargames). I could be mistaken but I thought I read about a whole Tiger/Tank Division stuck somewhere during D-Day due to a lack of fuel and their absence helped. But my history as well as my memory is shot these days..

But even with fuel, when bombers started being able to reach Berlin its just a matter of time that factories get destroyed and cant produce enough of anything. Thats why the Allies could trade off 6 shermans for 1 Tiger.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29

This is actually a really fascinating (if controversial) book, which theorises that the invasion of Russia was actually a pre-emptive strike by Germany against the Soviet Union, which was (according to the author) preparing to attack Europe. Very good read if you can find it.

Another thing I find fascinating is just how much reliance the Wehrmacht put on captured equipment. War Factories in France and Czechoslovakia were left producing much the same things they were before the German conquest in many cases, and numerous foreign designs found their way into the German army under new designations (Somua's excellent S35 design as the Pz 739(f), and the Czech LT-38 as the Pz 38(t)). There was even a unit in the German army at one point which consisted entirely of captured T-34s (Designated Pz 747(r)). I don't think there has been an armed force before or since which made quite as much use of captured materiel as the Wehrmacht.

Regarding the turning point of the European war, I mark it at Kursk. Kursk is where the Panzer armies are destroyed as an effective fighting force, and marks the last German Offensive in the East. Stalingrad didn't turn the tide so much as it evened the field.


The main failure on the eastern front was Hitler failing to secure the Caucaus oil fields.

Had the Germans ignored moscow, and leningrad, and secured the southern front, and the oil there, perhaps even driving to the Gulf region and its oil, they could have won.Disagree. I see what you're saying, but the logistics of actually getting that oil all the way back to Germany, combined with the tendency of German supply lines to be harassed by Russian partisans would have vastly lowered the amount of Oil actually reaching Germany from the Caucasus.

[immortal44]

Had the Germans ignored moscow, and leningrad

Hilter was preoccupied with prestige and morale. The RAF could have been destroyed but hitler started ordering attacks on london to break british morale and try to get them to surrender. Winner of ww2 = flip a coin.

[philgreg]

In response to comments on America being "unable" to defeat japan, i strongly disagree. The Soviets declared war on Japan right at the end, and this combined with all the resources from Europe would have been sufficient. Japan had little raw materials, and if the war would have threatened to go on longer, an allied assault on mainland China to defeat the Japanese there was a possibility. Hell, they had a UDT officer stationed there since Pearl Habour, who was making preparations and surveying likely landing sites etc.

Also, the British and American Bomber Fleets would ahve ground Japan into dust had the A bomb not been invented. They had enrmous numbers and were at the peak of their efficiency following the Air assault on germany.

"But even with fuel, when bombers started being able to reach Berlin its just a matter of time that factories get destroyed and cant produce enough of anything. Thats why the Allies could trade off 6 shermans for 1 Tiger."

An incredibly wrong point. German Industry reached its peak in ALL aspects in late 1944! The bombing offensive did very little. What crippled the German war effort was the Air offensive on the Synthetic Oil plants. After that, the German were messed, as the oil plants went as low as 31% of production.

[retroholyfire]

Japan would have been taken over even without the A-Bomb. The allies ahd air superiority and naval superiority. The main problem was the Japanese were fanatics and that would have costed amny lives. I doubt the invasion of their homeland would have made the japanese surrender. Also at the time bombers were capable of doing more damage than the A-Bomb. Dresdon was where laods of incedaries were dropped on a residential area for no reason except to mass murder and actually killed more than the atomic bomb (not sure if it's more than 1 bom or both)

[Lochar]

In response to comments on America being "unable" to defeat japan, i strongly disagree. The Soviets declared war on Japan right at the end, and this combined with all the resources from Europe would have been sufficient. Japan had little raw materials, and if the war would have threatened to go on longer, an allied assault on mainland China to defeat the Japanese there was a possibility. Hell, they had a UDT officer stationed there since Pearl Habour, who was making preparations and surveying likely landing sites etc.

Also, the British and American Bomber Fleets would ahve ground Japan into dust had the A bomb not been invented. They had enrmous numbers and were at the peak of their efficiency following the Air assault on germany.

"But even with fuel, when bombers started being able to reach Berlin its just a matter of time that factories get destroyed and cant produce enough of anything. Thats why the Allies could trade off 6 shermans for 1 Tiger."

An incredibly wrong point. German Industry reached its peak in ALL aspects in late 1944! The bombing offensive did very little. What crippled the German war effort was the Air offensive on the Synthetic Oil plants. After that, the German were messed, as the oil plants went as low as 31% of production.
Interesting, I was under the impression there was a severe manpower shortage as they even had their Jewish Prisoners working some of the factories before they decided on exterminating the race. Even without bombing and with fuel I didnt think they could replace losses with near any efficiency as the Allies. But then this is what happens when you watch way too many movies and mix it with way too many WW2 games. Sometimes the info gets mixed up and blurred..:)

But I still dont think even if it was at its peak it could compete, with 2 fronts, and loss of air supremacy.

[philgreg]

IF, after the battle of Britain had turned ALL industry over to fighters, i believe WW2 could well have taken a different course.
Also, Hitler had the Me262 developed in 1942 and this was trhe first jet fightrer. Had he mass produced them as fighters (instead of bombers, he used them to pursue his "stop bombing with counter bombing policy") then there is no reason he couldnt have turned the air war against the allies with minimal effort. The plane was an absolute monster for its era. It only got developed in 1944, and in insufficient numbers to turn the tide. Even then, at that late stage, Allied Air chiefs new a full scale prouduction of the Me262 would cost them their air supremacy, without which the Normandy invasion would have been " the biggest disaster in the history of warfare", to quote Eisenhower.

[MeatPacker]

The whole thing about Japan surrendering without an A-bomb was just a thought. I suppose without an external supplier they would have eventually run out of bullets which would have eventually brought an end to attrition-style guerilla tactics long after conventional armaments and munitions were exhausted. The question is how long would that have taken, and would battle-weary allied forces not have capitulated.

[Noir]

You could have just starved the entirety of Japan into submission you know.

Monstrous? Yup. But if you really want to dodge the A-bomb bullet and didn't mind the Soviets overrunning Asia...

[philgreg]

Interesting point.

[retroholyfire]

Would have taken too long. Hitler tried with Britain. A full scale bombing campaign was an alternative followed by a D-day on japanese shores.

[Siegeman]

I believe Japan would have been defeated even without the A-Bomb. There would have been a two pronged attack on the Japanese mainland. Soviets coming and invading the Northern part while the Americans and other allies would invade from the south. Casualties would be extremely high on both sides. Possibly a million for the Americans alone and tens of millions for the Japanese. Not to mention the civilian populus.

[philgreg]

"Would have taken too long. Hitler tried with Britain. A full scale bombing campaign was an alternative followed by a D-day on japanese shores."

Compare the forces involved. German Luftwaffe < USAAF, British Air Force French Air Force + USSR Air force (!).
German army < British, US, french + USSR forces.

Allied bombing techniques in 1945 were also much, much better than Luftwaffe in 1940/41.
British Navy was also much better than the Japanese.
Japan is probably easier to invade than britian (more options to land on easily ( all the W, N + S coast is near land, whereas only likely landing site is across Channel).
Japan also had no allies, no chance of winning, no raw materials to fall back on and no trading partners. Britain had all of these.

[LoneWolf666]

Britain? Fighting Japan? French ARMY? I admit to confusion...

[retroholyfire]

Britain was at war with Japan but was not involved in any major conflict with them as far as i'm aware. The French did have an army but it was annihalated. The remains came to britain during Dunkirk.

[philgreg]

i was speaking hypothetically, assuming the A bomb hadnt been used on Japan. Those countries wouldve entered the war against Japan etc.

[Ogrynsmash]

"Compare the forces involved. German Luftwaffe < USAAF, British Air Force French Air Force + USSR Air force (!).
German army < British, US, french + USSR forces.

Allied bombing techniques in 1945 were also much, much better than Luftwaffe in 1940/41.
British Navy was also much better than the Japanese.
Japan is probably easier to invade than britian (more options to land on easily ( all the W, N + S coast is near land, whereas only likely landing site is across Channel).
Japan also had no allies, no chance of winning, no raw materials to fall back on and no trading partners. Britain had all of these."

Germany Army vs British, US, French and USSR forces? I don't think Germans took many losses from the French but you forget the Italians! Italy was a tough opponent for British forces when they invaded Crete and Greece.

Don't forget Finland's small military force also joined the Axis forces and fought the USSR as well as Greek troops fighting the British.

The Germans weren't completely alone but they had no allies nearing the strength as themselves.

[retroholyfire]

Italy was in big trouble after the Italians and Germans got beaten in Africa by Monty (Well not just him but someone has to take the credit :D)

[Busby]

I would not say that Britain did not fight the Japanese in major conflicts, for instance HMS Prince of Wales was lost to Japanese bombers along with HMS Repulse when they were sent to Singapore to deter Japanese aggression.

[Siegeman]

The English did quite alot of fighting in the jungles of Burma and India.

[MeatPacker]

Japan has arable land, in fact I think it is their public policy to produce all of their own rice. Or maybe that was just an excuse to explain not buying any from America. But a naval blockade and starving them wouldn't have worked. Destroying their factories and then a battle of attrition until they ran out of munitions might have.

We can debate around in circles if any country other than America would have offered more than a token effort. Mostly meaningless speculation as it never came to that. The Soviet Union, England, Canada, and Australia I'm sure would have offered at least a token force. China? Now that's an interesting question...

This would be cool to replicate in a strategy game. Consider variables of population, food and natural resources, oil and energy supplies of each nation, industrial production, and technological development--and see how strategies could have been altered. Guesswork, of course, but might be fun.

[philgreg]

there is a game like that i think its calle Hearts of iron or summit like that. Seems quite good but very complex. You take over a country in anytime between 1933 - 1944 and play until 1949 (i think). You cna play interesting scenarios - my friend, as Poland, repelled the German assault on Poland, and then Germany got steamrollered by Polish to the East and french + British to the West. LOL

[retroholyfire]

Just want to point out it was not England that did the fighting but infact Britain. The Scots were in the army too. Generally wherever Britain went the larger countries in the common wealth went to.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

there is a game like that i think its calle Hearts of iron or summit like that. Seems quite good but very complex. You take over a country in anytime between 1933 - 1944 and play until 1949 (i think). You cna play interesting scenarios - my friend, as Poland, repelled the German assault on Poland, and then Germany got steamrollered by Polish to the East and french + British to the West. LOLHearts of Iron is a badass game.

[LoneWolf666]

But it's also pure fiction. ;) While some of the most important events of that time are present, the game allows a lot of freedom. I too did defend Poland from the German/soviet aggresion, though logically it was not possible. Also, there are no things like the sitzkrieg etc. It's not very good for recreating history. ;)

[philgreg]

lonewolf666, i disagree. Defending Poland was perfectly feasible - if they had had from 1933 to prepare like you do in the game ;)

[retroholyfire]

Didn't even need that long. If the Allies simply made sure Hitler obided by the rules for the size of army he could have more strictly and kept Germany under pressure WW2 may have been averted. However this may have lead to Germans being oppressed even to this day so It's hard to say.

[LoneWolf666]

If Britain and France kept to their end of the pact with Poland instead of doing the sitzkrieg, WW2 would end in the first two months...

Even if Poland did nothing but mobilize for war since 1933 we still would have lost - germany had a way larger production capacity + also Czech equipment + Soviet allies on eastern front.

[Lochar]

I am not too sure, will have to maybe find the book again but when was looking for some history books, saw a stat type book on WWII and it showed the manpower/tanks listing at the start of the war.

I dont remember the exact figures but between france and britain they almost equalled germany. The bad thing was that france and britain didnt expect the attacks so soon, also poland was still in its horse cavalry stages and towed most of their AT guns by horse.

The big thing tho was Germany's involvement in the Spanish Civil War which gave their troops combat experience, altho that may have been mainly the luftwaffe.

But still if the English and French helped defend Poland with as much resources as they could spare, it may have not been a blitzkrieg so much as a slow push. Time to go back to the bookstore tho as my history is muddled.